A food safety penalty in India is not decided by a court. It is decided by an officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate, sitting as the Adjudicating Officer for the district where the offence is alleged to have happened. Knowing that changes where you go, what you file, and how long you have.
Most guidance stops at the words appeal to the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal. This page sets out the whole ladder, from the first representation to the High Court, with the deadlines and the one relief that exists specifically for small vendors.
| Stage | Who | Section | The rule that matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adjudication | An officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate of the district where the alleged offence is committed, notified by the State Government | 68(1) | Notified in the manner prescribed by the Central Government |
| Your defence | The same officer | 68(2) | Penalty only after a reasonable opportunity for making representation |
| First appeal | Food Safety Appellate Tribunal | 70(1) | Established by the Central or State Government by notification, to hear appeals from decisions of the Adjudicating Officer under section 68 |
| Who sits on it | One person only, the Presiding Officer | 70(3) | Nobody is qualified unless he is or has been a District Judge |
| Second appeal | High Court | 71(6) | Within sixty days of communication of the Tribunal's decision, on any question of fact or law |
| Late second appeal | High Court | 71(6) proviso | A further period not exceeding sixty days on sufficient cause |
Section 72 explains why this ladder is the only route. No civil court has jurisdiction over any matter that an Adjudicating Officer or the Tribunal is empowered to determine, and no court or other authority may grant an injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken under the Act. Going to a civil judge is not an alternative.
Section 68(3) gives the officer the powers of a civil court, and puts two consequences beyond argument:
So a false statement in front of him is not a casual matter. It is made in a proceeding the statute treats as judicial.
Section 68(2) is the limit on his power. He may impose a penalty only after giving the person a reasonable opportunity for making representation in the matter, and only if satisfied on inquiry that the contravention happened.
Section 49 is your argument on the amount. Section 68(4) requires the Adjudicating Officer, and section 49 requires the Tribunal too, to have due regard to five things when fixing the quantum: the amount of gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the contravention; the amount of loss caused or likely to be caused to any person; the repetitive nature of the contravention; whether the contravention is without his knowledge; and any other relevant factor. Clause (d) is the one small businesses under-use. If a supplier's mislabelled stock got you here, say so and evidence it.
Section 69 is a compounding power, and it is drafted for exactly one group of people.
Under section 69(1), the Commissioner of Food Safety may by order empower the Designated Officer to accept, from petty manufacturers who themselves manufacture and sell any article of food, retailers, hawkers, itinerant vendors and temporary stall holders, a payment by way of composition of the offence they are suspected of having committed.
That last line is the boundary. Compounding is available for penalty offences, not for the imprisonment ones.
The Tribunal is deliberately informal, and section 71 says so.
Section 71(1): the Tribunal shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice, and may regulate its own procedure, including the place at which it sits.
Section 71(2) then gives it the powers of a civil court under the CPC while trying a suit, for:
Two more practical points. Section 71(4) lets the appellant appear in person, or authorise one or more legal practitioners, or any of its officers, to represent the case. You are not required to brief counsel. And section 71(5) applies the Limitation Act, 1963 to an appeal made to the Tribunal, except as otherwise provided in the Act.
The High Court appeal is unusually wide. Section 71(6) allows an appeal on any question of fact or law arising out of the Tribunal's order, not just a question of law. That is broader than many second appeals. The clock is sixty days from the date the decision or order is communicated to you, with a further period of up to sixty days available if the High Court is satisfied you were prevented by sufficient cause.
Following one penalty up the ladder. An illustration, not a real matter.
A small sweet shop is proceeded against for selling an article of food that is not of the quality demanded. Under section 50 that carries a penalty not exceeding ₹5 lakh.
The matter goes not to a court but to the Adjudicating Officer for the district, an officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate notified under section 68(1).
Before any penalty, section 68(2) entitles the owner to a reasonable opportunity of making a representation. He uses it to address section 49 directly: there was no quantifiable gain, the contravention was not repetitive, and it arose from a supplier's stock without his knowledge, which is clause (d).
If he is a retailer within the section 69(1) list, and the offence is not one for which imprisonment is prescribed, the Designated Officer, if empowered by the Commissioner of Food Safety, may accept a composition. Section 69(3) caps that at ₹1 lakh, and section 69(2) ends the proceedings on payment.
If a penalty is imposed instead, his appeal lies to the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal under section 70(1), before a Presiding Officer who is or has been a District Judge. He may appear in person under section 71(4).
From the Tribunal, section 71(6) gives him sixty days to appeal to the High Court on any question of fact or law, extendable by up to another sixty days for sufficient cause. What he cannot do, under section 72, is file a civil suit or seek an injunction.
Both the Adjudicating Officer and the Tribunal depend on a State notification. Whether your State has notified them, and whether the Commissioner of Food Safety has empowered Designated Officers to compound, are questions of fact.
To, The Public Information Officer, Office of the Commissioner of Food Safety, Food Safety and Drug Administration Department, [State] . Subject: Information under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 regarding adjudication and appeals under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Sir/Madam, Under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, please provide: 1. A copy of the notification by which the State Government has notified the Adjudicating Officer under Section 68 for each district, with the designation of the officer. 2. A copy of the notification establishing the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal under Section 70 for this State, with the name of the Presiding Officer and the judicial office he holds or has held. 3. A copy of the order, if any, of the Commissioner of Food Safety under Section 69(1) empowering Designated Officers to accept composition, with the list of officers so empowered. 4. The number of cases compounded under Section 69 in the last three financial years, with the total amount accepted, and the number of cases in which composition was refused. 5. The number of penalties imposed by Adjudicating Officers under Section 68 in the last three financial years, with the total amount imposed and recovered. 6. The number of appeals filed before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal in the last three financial years, the number decided, and the average time taken. I enclose the prescribed application fee of ₹10. If any part of this information is held by another public authority, please transfer that part under Section 6(3) within five days. Please supply the information within the period fixed by Section 7(1). Yours faithfully, [Name] [Full postal address] [Date]
Points 2 and 3 are the ones that decide whether the route above is real where you live. Build the application with the AI RTI Drafter, set the thirty-day deadline with the Timeline Tracker, and test a vague reply with the PIO Reply Checker. For the licence itself, see our guide to applying for an FSSAI food licence.
An officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate of the district where the alleged offence is committed, notified by the State Government as the Adjudicating Officer under section 68(1), in the manner prescribed by the Central Government. Not a magistrate's court.
Yes. Section 70(1) allows the Central or State Government to establish one or more Food Safety Appellate Tribunals to hear appeals from decisions of the Adjudicating Officer under section 68. Section 70(3) requires the single Presiding Officer to be, or to have been, a District Judge.
Sixty days from the date the Tribunal's decision or order is communicated to you, under section 71(6). The proviso allows the High Court to permit a further period not exceeding sixty days if satisfied you were prevented by sufficient cause.
Section 69(1) allows the Commissioner of Food Safety to empower a Designated Officer to accept composition from petty manufacturers who themselves manufacture and sell food, retailers, hawkers, itinerant vendors and temporary stall holders. Section 69(3) caps the sum at ₹1 lakh, and the proviso excludes any offence for which imprisonment is prescribed.
Section 69(2) says that on payment, the suspected person, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings in respect of that offence shall be taken against him.
No. Section 71(4) allows the appellant to appear in person, or to authorise one or more legal practitioners or any of its officers to represent the case. Section 71(1) also frees the Tribunal from the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, subject to the principles of natural justice.
Yes, separately. Section 73 provides that all offences not triable by a Special Court shall be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or a Metropolitan Magistrate, applying sections 262 to 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and its proviso permits a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding one year on a summary conviction.
Reviewed by Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak. Last verified against the India Code text of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 on 30 August 2026.